THE ONE PARTY STATE

Democrats Seek a Stronger Focus, and Money: More Americans say they are Democrats than Republicans. But Democrats lack unity, a coherent message and money. (ADAM CLYMER, 5/26/03, NY Times)

[T]here is at least some evidence of Democratic revival efforts, though hardly any Democrat who appears to be a quick fix. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe, talks of using computers to "find Democratic voters in those red states" (the ones that television showed going Republican in 2000) and to build a base of small donors. For more than 30 years Democratic chairmen have promised to go after small donors, and then have let it slide.

But this time the effort seems real, as the national committee is using various commercial lists to find out more about its existing donors and to identify prospects like them. One early return is that e-mail fund-raising, a very inexpensive method, raised $486,000 in the first four months of this year, compared with $115,000 a year ago--a pittance compared to Republican successes, but still a significant increase.

Other projects include an effort by Governor Richardson to create a political action committee to train Hispanic political operatives and unify Hispanic voters across current divisions of those with Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban or Central-American ancestors. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. has set up the Partnership for America's Families, an institution headed by the federation's former political chief, Steve Rosenthal, to do the on-the-ground organizing that political parties used to do (and Republicans have started to do again) including going house to house to get voters registered and discuss issues.

Another project nearing realization is the creation of a foundation like that of the conservative Heritage research group. The Democrats' organization will be led by John D. Podesta, President Clinton's last chief of staff. In September, Mr. Podesta said he expected to open the tentatively named American Majority Institute as "a think tank that both generates new ideas and provides a hard-hitting and consistent critique of the conservatives."

But Democratic efforts to build a new infrastructure pale next to the layers of affiliated political groups, research groups and like-minded media organs that the Republicans have fortified over the decades, especially since the election of Mr. Reagan as president in 1980. And, as Mr. Hart noted, Democrats are not trying to make inroads into Republican constituencies, like white male conservatives (who gave Mr. Gore only 11 percent of their votes in 2000) the way Republicans are going after African-Americans and Hispanics. On the other hand, Hispanic voters are becoming an ever-larger part of the electorate, and still give Democrats a solid majority of their votes.

If there is one thing all kinds of Democrats agree on, it is that they need a better message. Republicans have a very simple agenda of lower taxes, less government and more defense while Democrats have generalities like being for the little guy and attacking more than they propose.

Robert S. Strauss, the former Democratic national chairman who says Democrats seem to win the White House only on Republican mistakes like Watergate or that of the elder Bush in ignoring the faltering economy, calls last fall's performance on issues disgraceful.

"We didn't stand for anything," Mr. Strauss said. "We got what we deserved — nothing."

Will Marshall, an ally of Mr. From and Mr. Reed who leads the Progressive Policy Institute, said the party must "show that we can make progressive government work, not just defend the old New Deal monuments."

Bill Carrick, a more liberal Democratic strategist who is working for the presidential campaign of Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, said his party had "run out of gas." Mr. Carrick said Democrats would continue to fail if they chose to be "the party of incremental reforms, whether it's anything from school uniforms to prescription drugs, to patients' bill of rights." He said, "We've got to make the move away from incremental new reforms to big and broad issues."

There are two major elements of the Democrats' message problem. One is defensive--on the issue of security. The public strongly prefers Republicans on national defense, and even though most Democrats in Congress backed the war on Iraq, at least a third of the rank and file was unhappy with it, which makes it difficult for party leaders to get too far out in front.

Democrats have argued that the Bush administration is weaker than they are on the other element of security--domestic defense--but have made no headway despite the fact that Democrats wanted a department created to coordinate the effort before Mr. Bush would accept it and have urged greater spending on domestic security than the Bush administration would accept.

A more general problem was identified by Governor Richardson. In an interview, he said it was "very vague, but I think it's out there, that we're not the party of optimism and opportunity, that we're the party of malaise, and we're the party of class warfare."

One massive problem for the Democrats is that there are no new ideas for them to latch on to because the GOP has co-opted them. If the Democrats are fundamentally the party of government and the welfare net and if the 20th century established beyond argument the efficacy of competition and markets, then it should be they proposing the various free market reforms of social programs: Medical Savings Accounts, school vouchers, privatized retirement accounts, etc. All of these still require the diversion of private monies into government mandated institutions, but by allowing citizens/consumers greater choice about how that money is used, they bring market forces to bear on programs that were previously run from the top down and were insulated from competition. One needn't be a starry-eyed disciple of Milton Friedman to believe that such a system will inevitably function better than its predecessor. Yet Democrats, because they are captives of the unions and interest groups that have a vested interest in the inefficient older system, have proven themselves incapable of embracing reform.

Meanwhile, Republicans, who in their heart of hearts might well oppose even the government mandates, have recognized that they have no choice but to accept that there is going to be a governmental safety net, but have had the sagacity after facing this to push for making it as market-driven as possible. Conservatives, who for many years simply opposed things like welfare and Social Security, are now big supporters of such things and of public education, precisely because they afford a battlefield upon which to test their ideas.

This leaves us with a politics where the Democrat argument--that Republicans oppose social programs in their entirety--is demonstrably wrong, while the Republican argument--that Democrats oppose any kind of reform to a system that is obviously inefficient, sclerotic, and destined for bankruptcy--is exactly right. In this sense at least, Governor Richardson is right: the GOP is optimistic even on issues that Democrats used to own, while the Democrats seem to have given up. George W. Bush believes that if you let parents choose their children's schools, the parents will become more involved, the schools will be forced to respond, and the kids will get better educations. Democrats counter this by saying that, even if education would improve (I've never heard anyone argue it wouldn't), rich families will get money they don't need, public school teachers will be hurt, and religious schools might benefit. Republicans are arguing ideas and saying they'll work. Democrats are doing nothing beyond pitting groups against each other in order to defend the malaise.

We've said many times that conservatism is a minority ideology and can never enjoy long-term success in competition with liberalism, which is more self-consciously selfish. But, in an astoundingly inept feat, the Democrats have handed conservatives even the most selfish issues--redistribution of wealth via social programs--and so we may be in for a Republican epoch. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 26, 2003 9:51 AM